FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:42 AM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 12:20 PM, Rainer Traut wrote:
> Am 23.03.2011 11:09, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:43 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 11:17 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Compare those 2 sentances:
>> "The base SL distribution is basically Enterprise Linux, recompiled from
>> source.
>
> -snip-
>
>> "Q. What is Scientific Linux?
>>
>> A. Scientific Linux is in essence, a commercial enterprise linux
>> distribution, recompiled.

Please don't cut the paragraph where you're interested. Add:

Our main goal for the base distribution is to have everything compatible
with Enterprise, with only a few minor additions or changes. An example
of of items that were added are Alpine, and OpenAFS.

>
> and compare it with this statement:
>
> "CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policy
> and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages
> to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork)."
>

Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says
"compatible" too, like CentOS ...


--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:45 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 11:42 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 12:20 PM, Rainer Traut wrote:
>> Am 23.03.2011 11:09, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
>>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
>> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
> I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.

Then, why you say that without evidence?
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:48 AM
"John R. Dennison"
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>
> Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says
> "compatible" too, like CentOS ...

Honestly... This is a development list. If you need to have the
concept of binary compatibility explained to you then I fear you
are in the wrong place.





John

--
No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy,
however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic
processes can be pointed out and corrected.

-- Harry S Truman (1884 - 1972), 33rd US President, to a joint session
of the US Congress (12 March 1947), outlining what became known as
The Truman Doctrine
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:55 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>>
>> Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says
>> "compatible" too, like CentOS ...
>
> Honestly... This is a development list. If you need to have the
> concept of binary compatibility explained to you then I fear you
> are in the wrong place.
>
>

Honestly ... I know the meaning of the concept of "binary compatible". I
don't understand is where you see the difference between CentOS and SL
about this. Where is the difference?

--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 10:11 AM
Kenni Lund
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

2011/3/23 carlopmart <carlopmart@gmail.com>:
> On 03/23/2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>>>
>>> Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says
>>> "compatible" too, like CentOS ...
>>
>> * * * Honestly... This is a development list. *If you need to have the
>> * * * concept of binary compatibility explained to you then I fear you
>> * * * are in the wrong place.
>>
>>
>
> Honestly ... I know the meaning of the concept of "binary compatible". I
> don't understand is where you see the difference between CentOS and SL
> about this. Where is the difference?

carlopmart, please go to the -users list with this, one of the CentOS
devs actually posted a relevant example of the SL/CentOS differences
earlier today:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-March/108389.html

Best regards
Kenni
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 10:24 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 12:11 PM, Kenni Lund wrote:
> 2011/3/23 carlopmart<carlopmart@gmail.com>:
>> On 03/23/2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says
>>>> "compatible" too, like CentOS ...
>>>
>>> Honestly... This is a development list. If you need to have the
>>> concept of binary compatibility explained to you then I fear you
>>> are in the wrong place.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Honestly ... I know the meaning of the concept of "binary compatible". I
>> don't understand is where you see the difference between CentOS and SL
>> about this. Where is the difference?
>
> carlopmart, please go to the -users list with this, one of the CentOS
> devs actually posted a relevant example of the SL/CentOS differences
> earlier today:
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-March/108389.html
>
> Best regards
> Kenni

I don't doubt about Johnny Hughes says in his email, but there is an
important point is not to taken into account: SL5.6 is not released and
Johnny makes his comparision between SL and CentOS 5.6.

ok, then the principal two reasons to don't fusion CentOS and SL are:

a) SL is not "binary compatible"

b) SL binaries are linked in different manner than TUV does.

?? am I right??


--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 11:07 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 09:13 AM, carlopmart wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please, first of all, I don't want to start a flame about this
> subject. I only wnat to know CentOS's developers point of view about
> this particular.

we looked at this in the past and :

- SL and CentOS have different goals, and neither of us are keen on
adapting the other's
- its good to have two projects, its keep user options open

thats about it.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 11:12 AM
Luigi Rosa
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Karanbir Singh said the following on 23/03/11 13:07:

> - SL and CentOS have different goals, and neither of us are keen on
> adapting the other's
> - its good to have two projects, its keep user options open

It could be added here

http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/category.php?categoryid=2

to avoid further useless thread



Ciao,
luigi

- --
/
+--[Luigi Rosa]--


You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2J460ACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZR9awCeLUO28UAeGz AHsAn4+vT0NGee
cfwAoMrsVnhnbIkpZjOzYc9XBYvpcyW+
=+Vq/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 11:20 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 01:07 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 09:13 AM, carlopmart wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please, first of all, I don't want to start a flame about this
>> subject. I only wnat to know CentOS's developers point of view about
>> this particular.
>
> we looked at this in the past and :
>
> - SL and CentOS have different goals, and neither of us are keen on
> adapting the other's

Ok, that's a good reason.

Thanks Karanbir.

--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org